1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to 10,000.

1. Determination of the principal safety defense against the counterclaim

A. The plaintiff's defense, while the plaintiff filed a claim for the delivery of a building on the ground that the principal lawsuit of this case expired, the defendant's counterclaim is a claim for damages based on interference with the opportunity to collect premiums, etc., and the above counterclaim is not related to the claim of the principal lawsuit or defense, and the plaintiff's counterclaim is unlawful because it does not meet the requirements for the counterclaim because it does not significantly delay litigation procedures.

B. As a requirement for a counterclaim, the relationship between the principal claim and the counterclaim is recognized even in cases where the cause of the principal claim and the cause of the counterclaim are legally or factually common, and the cause of the principal claim and the counterclaim in this case are relevant to the lease relationship between the parties and the legal disputes surrounding the leased building, and thus, the subject of the counterclaim in this case and the cause of the counterclaim in this case are factual common. Therefore, there is no ground for appeal.

On the other hand, the counterclaim of this case was raised after the first day for pleading was opened on January 10, 2017, before the second day for pleading, and it cannot be readily concluded that deliberation on the part of the claim for counterclaim of this case is significantly delaying the litigation procedure. Thus, the counterclaim of this case is without merit.

The plaintiff's defense related to the counterclaim shall not be accepted.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. 1) On August 5, 2011, the Defendant is the part of 40 square meters of neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant store”) among the real estate 98.12 square meters of real estate indicated in the attached Table between C and C on August 5, 2011.

(2) As to the lease agreement, a lease agreement consisting of KRW 10 million, the lease term of KRW 24 months from August 8, 201, and the monthly rent of KRW 1.2 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) On October 25, 2013, the Plaintiff signed a lease deposit and received a delivery of the store, and is in possession and use of it in the name of “D cafeteria.”